On MIPS, error number 98 is not EADDRINUSE (it is EPROTOTYPE). To fix the
resulting test failure this causes, use a more portable error number in
the example documentation. EINVAL shold be more reliable because it was
defined in the original Unix as 22 so hopefully most derivatives have
defined it the same way.
Whitelist v7 feature for ARM and AARCH64.
Needed for `v7` features in `coresimd`.
See b2f7be24d5/coresimd/src/arm/v7.rs (L40) which used to work but doesn't anymore.
r? alexcrichton
Add line numbers and columns to error messages spanning multiple files
If an error message is emitted that spans several files, only the
primary file currently has line and column data attached. This is
useful information, even in files other than the one in which the error
occurs. We can often work out which line and column the error
corresponds to in other files — in this case it is helpful to add them
(in the case of ambiguity, the first relevant line/column is picked,
which is still helpful than none).
Run rustfmt and add doc comments to libsyntax/ext/tt/macro_parser.rs
Similar to #47603
cc @theotherphil since you reviewed my other PR 😄
And because they are already assigned on #47603:
r? @arielb1
Make run-pass/env-home-dir.rs test more robust
Remove the assumption that home_dir always returns Some.
This allows the test to be executed with [cross](https://github.com/japaric/cross).
Run rustfmt and add doc comments to libsyntax/ext/tt/quoted.rs
I was already going to try to understand this code to try to implement rust-lang/rfcs#2298. I figured I would put that knowledge into comments and share... This PR contains _no changes_ to the code itself -- just formatting and comments.
I'm not sure what the best way to do this is. I plan to make more such PR for other files, but I figured it would have fewer conflicts if I do it file by file...
syntax: Lower priority of `+` in `impl Trait`/`dyn Trait`
Now you have to write `Fn() -> (impl A + B)` instead of `Fn() -> impl A + B`, this is consistent with priority of `+` in trait objects (`Fn() -> A + B` means `(Fn() -> A) + B`).
To make this viable I changed the syntax to also permit `+` in return types in function declarations
```
fn f() -> dyn A + B { ... } // OK, don't have to write `-> (dyn A + B)`
// This is acceptable, because `dyn A + B` here is an isolated type and
// not part of a larger type with various operator priorities in play
// like `dyn A + B` in `Fn() -> dyn A + B` despite syntax similarities.
```
but you still have to use `-> (dyn A + B)` in function types and function-like trait object types (see this PR's tests for examples).
This can be a breaking change for code using `impl Trait` on nightly. The thing that is most likely to break is `&impl A + B`, it needs to be rewritten as `&(impl A + B)`.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/34511https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44662https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/438
Implicit coercions from references to pointers were lowered to slightly
different Mir than explicit casts (e.g. 'foo as *mut T'). This resulted
in certain uses of self-referential structs compiling correctly when an
explicit cast was used, but not when the implicit coercion was used.
To fix this, this commit adds an outer 'Use' expr when applying a
raw-ptr-borrow adjustment. This makes the lowered Mir for coercions
identical to that of explicit coercions, allowing the original code to
compile regardless of how the raw ptr cast occurs.
Fixes#47722
Currently if `--out-dir` is set to a non-existent directory, the
compiler will throw unfriendly messages like `error: could not write
output to subdir/example.crate.allocator.rcgu.o: No such file or
directory`, which, while not completely unreadable, isn’t very
user-friendly either. This change creates the directory automatically
if it does not yet exist.
When the compiled executable would conflict with a directory, display a
rustc error instead of a verbose and potentially-confusing linker
error. This is a usability improvement, and doesn’t actually change
behaviour with regards to compilation success. This addresses the
concern in #35887.
